Untwalia, J.

1. A Bench of this Court has formulated a question of law in this Letters Patent Appeal and referred it to a Full Bench for its opinion under Rules 1 and 3 of Chapter V, Part II of the Patna High Court Rules. The question of law referred to is in the following terms:-

-

"Whether an Election Tribunal has got power to allow amendment of the verification of an election petition challenging the election of a Gram Panchayat in this State, if it is not verified in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether it is imperative for the Tribunal to dismiss the petition without affording an opportunity to the election petitioner for amending it ?"

2. Respondent No. 1 was the elected Mukhiya of Gamaria Gram Panchayat in the district of Dhanbad. The appellant filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal for setting aside the election of respondent No. 1 and for declaring him duly elected to the office of the Mukhiya in accordance with the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1939 (hereinafter called the Rules). The petition was contested by respondent No. 1 on various grounds. The Election Tribunal framed several issues for trial, and decided them in favour of the appellant, declaring the election of respondent No. 1 to be void and the appellant to be duly elected. Respondent No. 1 filed C.W. J. C. No. 98 of 1971 in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decision of the Tribunal. The writ case came UP For hearing before B. D. Singh, J. The learned Judge found that the verification of the election petition was not made as required by Rule 75 (1) of the Rules hence the election petition was liable to be dismissed summarily under Rule 77. On a discussion of the various authorities on the point and following a Bench decision of this Court in Satya Nand Singh V/s. Bujhlal Singh (1967 BLJR 439), the learned Judge allowed the writ application and dismissed the election petition. The appellant preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. When the appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court consisting of Shambhu Prasad Singh and Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, JJ., the Hon ble Judges, as indicated in their order of reference, were pleased to doubt the correctness of the view expressed by a Bench of this Court in Satva Nand Singhs case (1967 BLJR 439). After elaborately referring to the various aspects of the matter, the decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court on the point, the Bench has formulated a question of law for our opinion, as stated above.

4. I shall proceed to discuss the law on the joint with reference to the relevant rules in the Rules and the appropriate authorities.

5. Rule 70 of the Rules provides:-

-

"No election held under these rules shall be called in question in any other manner on any ground whatsoever other than by a petition before the Election Tribunal appointed under these rules."

I shall read Rules 75 and 77 in full-

"75. (1) An election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall, where necessary be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively. It shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings.

(2)(a) The petition shall be accompanied by a list signed and verified in the like manner setting forth full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice which the petitioner alleges, including as full statement as possible as to the names of the parties alleged to have committed any corrupt or illegal practice and the date and place of the commission of such practice.

(b) The Election Tribunal may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as it may direct, at any time, allow the particulars included in the said list to be amended or order such further and better particulars in regard to any matter referred to therein to be furnished as may, in its opinion,